The Next Fifty Years: Science in the First Half of the Twenty-first Century

I picked this up with the express purpose of waving it about 35 years from now and yelling in my old man's voice "Where's my [this book's equivalent of a] jetpack?" While it's interesting, I don't think I'll bother.

That the book is over 10 years old and obviously a bit dated (yes, e-books did become a thing; no, AFAIK we still haven't proven that breast cancer is caused by infection) isn't its major problem. Rather, it is that the editor seems to have first decided which authors he wanted to include and only after getting their contributions realising that a lot of them ended up writing about the same issues. So we get a bunch of articles that skirt the same issues (biochemistry, genetics, and Moore's Law in every single chapter) while show more others that might have been at least as interesting (say, the environment, or energy) are all but completely absent. Plus, of course, if you want to be pessimistic you could argue that all these things we might achieve over the next half- (or third-) century depends on us not spending that time killing each other and handing political power to people who still think the world is 6,000 years old, and there's nobody here who's not a "pure" scientist willing to look beyond their own field to society at large.

That said, sure, there are some very interesting essays here, promising a few decades of increaing awarness of complexity, leavin us with some very intriguing ethical issues to face (or ignore, if you want Dawkins' opinion). show less

When I first got this book (2003), I was very excited about the concept of a book of short essays on what we expect to see over the next fifty years of science. But now as I look at it, I am disappointed by the author selection: Lee Smolin next to Martin Rees, and Paul Davies next to Richard Dawkins? How is a layperson supposed to know who to trust and who might be a little off their rockers?* Then there's poor Ian Stewart predicing that the Poincare conjecture won't be proved by 2050; the book was sadly out of date no more than two weeks after I finished reading it. Basically, some of the essays probably do have merit, but since it most likely takes someone knowledgeable in that field to be able to say so, this book has little overall show more to offer. Might be entertaining again come 2050, though :)

*For the record, when it comes to pointificating on science, my money is on Rees and Dawkins. show less

This is a book for those who wish to be entertained for a few hours. However, if you're looking for serious predictions on the future, you ought to go where everyone else goes: back to bed.

Very likely completely off but stimulating ideas. Lots of different authors so quality varies.

Interesting collection of technological/scientific predictions. Since the book is somewhat dated, some predictions have been shown to be correct/incorrect. I appreciated the predictions for the life sciences, medicine, and psychology.

Essays by really smart people. Much like the great stuff on Brockman's www.edge.com site.

375713425